Re: Writing checks with your mouth, that your butt cannot cash..
Did Obama start a name-calling war with N. Korea? Nope.
Did Trump? Do you believe that the current problem we have with Kim Jong Un is Trump's fault? It is true that the news media is trying to make as many people as possible believe that. But the fact is that Trump inherited the North Korean problem 100%.
Here's what Al Gore recently said;
quote:The former VP says his intemperate comments on North Korea were really unwise, but reasons, I think it’s only fair to point out he inherited this crisis. The previous three presidents were not able to find an adequate solution [to the North Korea crisis], so he can’t be blamed for all this.
quote:"These people, in three or four years, are going to have nuclear weapons. They're going to have them pointed all over the world and specifically at the United States.
The biggest problem this world has is nuclear proliferation. [...] You know it, and every politician knows it, and nobody wants to talk about it."
The future president went on to ask about disarming North Korea: Do you want to do it in five years when they have warheads all over the place? Pointing to Washington, pointing to New York? Or do you want to do it now?
It's too bad that about 1/3 of the U.S. population, and about 90% of the press, HOPE that a military confrontation happens now with North Korea, if it provides them with a path to try to get Trump removed from office. That's the whole idea, the whole plan, they would sacrifice part of the U.S. to a nuclear attack, they would sacrifice any number of things that would be good for the U.S., if it would provide them with a way to get Trump out.
So... any Trumping Christians want to explain to me why I'm wrong?
I don't know about telling you you're "wrong", but I can explain how Christians support Trump. First though, I'll need to be clear on just what you mean by "wolf in sheep's clothing". Do you mean he pretends to be a Christian and is really not, or do you mean he has something tricky up his sleeve, for a non-Christian act he plans to do in the future?
Do you mean he pretends to be a Christian and is really not, or do you mean he has something tricky up his sleeve, for a non-Christian act he plans to do in the future?
The first one
Okay.
Trump didn't announce his candidacy for the presidency until mid 2015, and yes, I don't think many Christians put him at the top of their list for Christian role models up until that time. Like most Christians I'm sure, I didn't think about him much at all. Just another high-roller New York hotshot, who seemed to be most notable for his television show where he sits behind a desk and arrogantly tells most people "you're fired". I never watched the show, just saw a few promo's of it etc. But I didn't hate him, he never did anything to me - I wasn't jealous of him. Just a little Christian trait that I, and many Christians have.
Now it's mid-2015, we have the usual group of ho-hum Romney-esque clowns thinking about running as a Republican for president. Obama hadn't come anywhere near his promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term, among many other disappointments of his presidency. Then Trump comes down the escalator and begins to speak. As I said, I didn't hate him, so I listened. He said things that made sense, like "China is killing us on trade", and "our porous southern border really is a threat to our national security". "We're going to build a wall, and China is going to pay for it". A lofty promise for sure, but no more lofty than Obama's promise to cut the deficit, while doing everything he could to increase the size and scope of government.
Then the campaign began, and other things about him started getting noticeable. He seemed to have pretty decent, hard working children, like maybe he's a good father. It's possible of course to be a liberal / atheist good father, but being a good father is a Biblical Christian trait. I've yet to see any sign that he is, or had ever been, a drunk. Another good Christian trait, one that many of our current and past politicians cannot claim.
While many here seem to base Christianity on a few cherry picks of New Testament teachings, of turning the other cheek and being meek and quiet and all of that, it must be remembered that there were some very Godly Old Testament kings, who understood that being LEADERS, that representing a country full of people required being assertive. King David killed a few more people that Trump has, King Solomon had a few more wives than Trump has. Many Christians feel that the time has come for a Theodore Roosevelt type of president, one who has the ability to speak bluntly when necessary. He has coined a phrase that is about 40 years overdue - FAKE NEWS. The term is here to stay, it's very descriptive.
Trump is 72 years old. I was up at 8:00 last Saturday morning, turned on the news, and there he is out on the golf course. He had met with people coming in to U.S. airports at 2am in the past, with a full schedule in the coming days. Even those who hate him have to admit that he is energetic. Christians like that. I never noticed that kind of energy from past presidents. A big part of his victory was the result of his hard work. I'm 63 and wish I had his energy. I guarantee that a lot of people don't appreciate a thing called physical aches and pains that most all 72 year olds have.
But the main reason his support increases among Christians today? Because of the way he reacts to the SATANIC HATRED that comes at him from all directions. Most anyone else would have resigned the presidency by now. He deals with it in a very measured, Christian way. He could have gloated a lot more than he did after so many prominent haters laughed at the possibility of him becoming president, including Obama. And the geniuses of the Democrat party, Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi.
Sure, his earlier public life didn't indicate a passion for Christianity, with his casino developments etc. but it was a long time ago. He is older and wiser now, and Christians believe he has a genuine love for the U.S. Christians believe he represents their knowledge that the bigger and more prominent a nation is, the less ability it has to just coast along with no effort. It takes effort for the U.S. to function. Right now, about 50.1% of the U.S. population desires to live at the expense of the other 49.9%, the recent popular vote victories of Hillary, and Al Gore before her, are proof of that. So far, the electoral college has saved us from that mob, but all the Democrats need is a little more illegal immigration, and they can render the electoral college useless. That's when Christians, knowing something about human nature, understand that many of the 49.9% will bolt to the do-nothing 50.1% side in short order, and that's when food store shelves start getting empty, when gas stations start closing.
I know of course, that everyone else in this thread thinks Christians are wrong about these things. I'm not here to discuss that, I just wanted to answer your question about why Christians support Trump. I hope it helps.
P.S. I'm also not here to discuss evolutionist's versions of what Christianity is and who Christians are.
I don't think Trump was ever a drunk, but he's definitely been drunk. See How often does President Trump drink alcohol?. As in most things, Trump lies about his drinking, too. He has claimed many times that he doesn't drink. This is a lie.
I'd expect him to drink a little bit in social gatherings, but your link isn't very convincing that he's "definitely been drunk". That's just the proclamation of "Ruth Ellis Haworth", someone who appears to have a very anti-Trump bias.
There's nothing wrong with speaking bluntly.
Yet Trump is the first president to do it in a long time, probably since Truman, if not Theodore Roosevelt. During their past campaigns, all the Republicans that were in the primaries against Trump, and Bush, and Reagan etc. had to tiptoe around being blunt about the anti-Christian news media. Unlike all them, Trump wasn't dependent on any special interest to finance his campaign, so he didn't have to worry about political correctness like all of them did. And.... Christians liked that!
The problem with Trump is his lying. Trump has turned the old joke, "How do you know he's lying? His lips are moving," into a truism. It's pathological with him. Even when no lie is necessary he lies anyway.
Obama and the Clintons did their share of lying for fun, it's documented. Every president is accused of lying by those who favor the other party, and can often make good cases for it. The problem is, it can sometimes be hard to distinguish between a lie, and some innocent play-acting in the interest of politeness and good manners, something that a U.S. president often has to do just about every day. If, during Trump's meeting with Kim Jong Un, he would have just scowled, and said "okay little Rocket Man, do you have any thing substantial to say to me?", it would have been much more honest than all the smiling and back slapping that he did. But it wouldn't have gone over nearly as well with the rest of the world. A lot of politeness is phony, it's just human nature.
Trump didn't coin the phrase fake news, he merely uses it with a different definition.
And there's nothing wrong with that, he popularized the term, in a very useful way.
Got that? Fake news means actual for-real fake news, i.e., news that is made up out of whole cloth.
Because that's the way Hillary used it, and she is the end-all of word definitions? Word definitions can't be modified, or changed completely, as the word "gay" has over the past several decades? Brian Ross was fired from ABC news (reluctantly, they had no choice) for making something up out of whole cloth. That's fake news, but many Christians like myself also have decided to consider tricky twists and distorts of the truth to also be fake news. I watch ABC Fake News Tonight With David Muir most evenings, and see it there in some degree every single night. Like the time several months ago when Syria gassed it's own people, and Trump declared that Syria's president "crossed a lot of lines". While some details were being shown on the newscast, the caption ~Trump; "crossed a lot of lines"~ was displayed at the bottom of the screen. They knew that casual passersby of the TV screen saw "Trump crossed a lot of lines", and were completely mislead on what actually happened. This is the games non-Christian news outlets play. Many Christians recognize it. It happens in countless other ways.
He used a golf cart. You never hear about his handicap, so I assume he's a poor golfer shooting between 90 and a 100. So to play a round he has to climb in and out of his golf cart a hundred times, and swing a golf club a hundred times, about half of which are putts.
My point was that he's energetic. He probably finished that up by mid-day and did some presidential business that afternoon - and evening. Maybe I've missed it, but I don't remember seeing this kind of energy from past presidents, often much younger than him.
Christians would really love me, then. I'm older than you and I play tennis for a couple hours four times a week. A couple weeks ago during the heat wave I played 2 hours in 94 degree heat. I doubt Trump would hold up for 10 minutes.
More reasons why Christians should love me more than Trump: I've been married and faithful to the same wife for 34 years, none of my children are being investigated by a special counsel, I've never gone bankrupt, I've never cheated people out of money I owed them, I've never said anything misogynistic like about about grabbing women by the pussy (let alone being recorded saying it), I never lie because I conduct my life in a way that means I never have to, I'm not a racist or a bigot, and I haven't alienated our allies while chumming it up with brutal dictators. My main flaw from a Christian standpoint is is that I don't believe in the Christian God, but then neither does Trump.
But you seem to favor socialism and big government, and are very forgiving of Obama and the Clintons for all their lies. Not a bigot? Bigotry is defined as "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion." Considering the hatred most of the political left, including you, shows towards Trump, it might be time for you to realize that you no longer have a monopoly on that word. What has Trump done that has personally affected your life?
His current public life doesn't indicate a passion for Christianity, either. It does indicate a passion for the Christian vote.
It indicates a passion for traditional economical liberties. Christians aren't necessarily looking for someone to establish Christianity in government. If the U.S. can avoid being turned into a socialist country, then Christianity is served. Trump's personal life is secondary.
I understand that we may differ in political and ideological viewpoints, but I'm not really sure how you can write the above with a straight face; assuming you're not just trolling. No President in living memory has gloated more than Trump. He regularly goes on Twitter to declare himself a political genius.
A lot of what he does is a reaction to the unprecedented hate he has to deal with every day. He uses Twitter to by-pass the news medias distortions of what he has to say. No president in history has had his opponents make complete fools of themselves during the campaign for the presidency. He was justified in the gloating he did, (it was satisfying to many Christians - he owed it to them) and he could have done it more.
George Bush was excoriated and ridiculed in the press and on the internet. Barack Obama was villified by different sections of the press and was accused by whackos on the internet of all manner of sins. How did they respond to these critics? They didn't, because they were trying to look presidential and had better things to do, being President of the US.
Bush and Obama didn't get it to anywhere near the extent Trump does. The media (according to them, the world) was "stunned" that he supposedly put a trust in Putin more so than in his own intelligence department. It could have been the wrong thing to say, but it's understandable since at least some of his own intelligence department is corrupt, and out to destroy his presidency. Ever hear of Peter Strzok, or John Brennan?
Check the above short vid, starting at 1:25, and tell me how presidential Obama looked.
Trump, on the other hand, writes angry rants on the internet in response to comedians who mock him and publically denigrates journalists who criticise him. To praise this reaction as measured indicates either a total lack of honesty or a distressing level of self-delusion.
He's not a stuffy Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon, he has a personality that many Christians happen to like. "Journalists" are demonstrating a hatred that is simply not good for the well being of the U.S.
The behaviour of many US Republicans at the moment reminds me of my student days organising campaigns against the Iraq War - specifically of those socialists and Communists advocating alliances with Islamic radicals. The idea of supporting someone whose whole ethos is antithetical to everything you claim to believe just because of a couple of policies or some common enemy is baffling to me.
Trump's ethos and "couple of politices" are FAR less antithetical to Christianity than godless socialism of today's Democrat party. .
Hyroglyphyx said something about Christianity being linked to nationalism - but Trump's not even a good nationalist. The President of the United States is tweeting anti-American Russian state propaganda! Surely you don't need to be a tie-dyed hippy for that to be a step too far?
Who told you that? The fake news media? Quote one of those tweets and we'll discuss it. Should the entire presidency be judged on tweets?
Edited by Admin, : Make link to YouTube video inline.
This is your favorite argument. "I don't remember it, so let's assume it did not happen." I knew we'd see it again.
It's how voters make their decisions. If you disagree with the statement, I'd expect to see some documentation of high levels of energy from past presidents.
But I am also seeing from you, "well Obama did it too", I'd have to point out that you did not support Obama when he did those things.
Because he had different motives for doing them.
I appreciate the time you took to respond. And despite my picking at what I see as the least well-supported parts of your response, there is plenty here to think about.
Thank you. I made it 245 days between activities here. It was a calm, peaceful time, a new streak may be starting soon.
quote:I know of course, that everyone else in this thread thinks Christians are wrong about these things. I'm not here to discuss that, I just wanted to answer your question about why Christians support Trump. I hope it helps.
P.S. I'm also not here to discuss evolutionist's versions of what Christianity is and who Christians are.
Hyroglyphx hasn't been here since he asked the question, but no less than 7 other frantic Trump haters have come in to bat for him. That's one of the reasons I LOVE this place, (about once every 6 months that is) but I still have little interest in doing any more than answering his question. Percy did provide a beautiful prompt for me to more thoroughly answer that question however, I'll get to that shortly, including a few other brief comments.
Percy writes:
Do Christians care that Trump bluntly tells lies?
The lie accusations fly with every president, it's all very subjective. In the case of presidents, and the news media for that matter, Christians can consider ~omissions of truth~ as almost as serious as a lie. Trump wasn't a D.C. insider, and some of the things he said during the campaign, and is saying now, are TRUTHS that need to be said, since D.C. insiders tend not to say them.
Of course word definitions can change. Are you saying that you think fake news should now be defined as any news unfavorable to Donald Trump or that he disagrees with?
It WILL be defined however the general public chooses to recognize the term. If they decide that it's a personal opinion from someone who claims to be an objective journalist, that's the way it will be defined, and it will be a very broad definition.
I don't watch any television news and so can't comment, and I don't think your reactions to ABC News are relevant to this conversation anyway. In a thread about Trump this should be about what Trump thinks is fake news, not you.
It's more on topic than your and Stile's above conversation about unions. (please don't ban me, I'm going I'm going.)
What 9K says here is that whatever he decides is distortion, and his criteria is easily revealed to be subjective and leaning towards whatever he already believes, is fake news.
I get my information from lots of sources. My views are actually pretty mainstream, the reason there is so much shock about them here is probably because most here, like Percy, live in the tiny NY Times, Washington Post bubble.
There's nothing Christian about Trump. Christians support him because he's a fellow traveler with respect to conservative judgeships and abortion and other Christian causes, not because he in any way resembles a Christian.
YOU GOT IT! There you are Hyroglyphx, wherever you are! They don't support today's Democrats because of Democrats passion for liberal judgeships, the pro abortion causes, and the many other socialist, anti-constitution leanings of today's Democrats. My work here is almost done!
We're judging Trump's presidency on two things: What he says and what he does. What he says consists of tweets, occasional responses to reporter questions, occasional interviews, occasional public comments, and what he says at his rallies. It doesn't include press conferences, since there was only the one press conference held shortly after his inauguration a year ago January.
What Trump does is a mixed bag. He's been pretty strong on Russia with sanctions, allowing the sending of arms to the Ukraine, and allowing engagement with Russian forces in Syria. He's been incredibly destructive or misguided on other things, such as attacking our democratic institutions, the cruelty of family separations, and the raising of tariffs that are now causing layoffs in the US.
More NY Times talking points.
Something to think about, before I go; WW1 was sparked by an assassination. Today's unhinged news media could easily be inspiring many people to desire to become famous by assassinating Trump. If Trump were assassinated, there WOULD be dancing in the streets, in the ghetto areas of the bigger cities in the U.S. How do you think Trump supporters would respond? Do you think it could resemble something this country hasn't seen in 155 years? I wouldn't want to see it, and I think the Trump haters should tone it down. It's easy to see your anger isn't only at Trump, it's at all the voters who elected him. Obama went to Cuba and made nice with the communists down there are few years ago, the news media didn't have a fit. FDR met with Stalin during his presidency. Jimmy Carter gave away the Panama canal. This has got to be the first time in history when the news media goes nuts when a U.S. president has friendly, largely meaningless meetings with foreign leaders. All this outrage by the media at every small Trump action is a transparent witch hunt, and many Democrat voters, who aren't Trump haters, can see through it. The news media fools some, but not near all of them. We'll see how it goes this November.
I really think if Cruz, or Huckabee, or any of the others would have been elected, the hate would be just as bad. It's a hate of U.S. tradition, not just Trump.
Re: But that is a trait that defines the Evangelical Fundamentalist
Technically speaking, Russians voted for Trump and are considered geniuses for it
Christians don't believe that the socialist/communists of Russia would favor a free-market, capitalist supporter like Trump over a socialist/communist supporter like Hillary. It's just common sense.
You've replied to not a single specific Trump comment or action I cited in my previous message while merely repeating your empty claims about the media.
I'm only here at this time to make it as clear as I can why Christians support him. Most all of the other Pro-Trump / anti-Trump discussion is raging all over the country, I don't have the time for it. I might not have time to get to both of your messages tonight, but I'll try to in the coming evenings. But if you don't believe the media is heavily biased against Trump, we might not have much more do discuss. It's documented which party most all the high profile reporters and anchors vote for, and youtube is full of their reaction of his being elected back in November of 2016. They couldn't hide the bias.
The above graph of Trump lies includes omissions of truth.
Impeachment has been the number 1 priority of the Democrats and the news media ever since that fateful evening of November 2016. I'm not surprised that many in the news media were assigned to compile "lie charts". Let's examine what "lies" actually are.
Lies of any sort are condemned by the Bible. They can be very minor, or they can be severe. (see Message 2219 for a really severe one) A common greeting in the U.S. is "How are you?" (here in Kentucky it can often be "How ya doin") And the answer is often "Fine". Any lying involved? Of course there is, most times the one asking "how are you" doesn't give a rat's rear end how someone is. And the person answering "fine" also isn't perfectly fine every time. Are these lies crimes, or are they just human nature? How many of Trump's lies (specified on your chart) are equally this innocent? I'm sure if Trump passed Jim Acosta in the halls of the capitol and asked "how ya doin", (in keeping with the MAGA hat he had on) Acosta wouldn't answer, he'd be so excited as he got on his phone and immediately spread it out to all other reporters "Cha-ching!!! I just got him in another lie, he asked how I was and I know he doesn't really care!!!
He is largely on the same receiving end of media bombardment as Sarah Sanders is. They have many days to carefully craft gotcha questions, and either way she answers can be jumped on, then twisted and distorted to make it look like she said something different than she did yesterday, or a week ago. I don't even know why Trump allows those briefings, they're supposed to be informative for the public, and all they are is attack dog fests. On my local ABC news channel, which is usually non-political as it covers local news, showed a brief clip of ABC's Cecelia Vega asking something about the possibility of Trump having early stages of dementia. Since they tried that line back during the campaign and it didn't work then, what makes them think it will work now? We hear that the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results, I'd have to question Vega's mental stability.
False. Democrats support measures to tighten border security, but they don’t support Trump’s plans for a border wall or other parts of his aggressive immigration agenda.
Tighten how? There's no evidence that they have anything but empty talk. That's all Obama had for 8 years.
False. North Korea conducted 74 missile tests during the Obama administration, or roughly one test every five and a half weeks. The rate was far higher during Trump’s first year in office: 20 tests, or roughly one test every two and a half weeks.
But they've stopped now haven't they? Many Americans haven't noticed, because it's not on the news.
False. The special counsel continues to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election and there’s no word yet whether Trump’s campaign colluded with the Russians.
That's right, there's STILL no real evidence. Yet the wasteful witch hunt continues.
No one is saying Trump never says anything that is true, but if Trump has stated "TRUTHS that need to be said" then please tell us what they are.
I've already mentioned one, "China is killing us on trade". He has said many things that are true, yet offensive to most Washington insiders, including some in his own party. He doesn't care, if they're true.
Don't you think that most anyone hearing a news report labeled "fake news" will believe they're being told the account is false?
I think they could also believe, as I do, that they're being cleverly mis-lead, in such a way that the misleaders can't be officially called on it. Like the "Trump "crossed a lot of lines" caption that I referred to earlier. It happens a LOT.
We're talking about news. All news outlets have opinion pages or segments, including Fox News and Breitbart - that's not what we're discussing.
And it's often really hard to distinguish between what is opinion and what is supposed to be unbiased fact. There is very little unbiased journalism anymore - there's no money in it. It's clear to most Christians that the DNC has bought and paid for all the mainstream media. And the RNC owns Fox. It is what it is.
You sound proud that Christians are behaving politically in order to enforce their own religiously based beliefs of morality upon those outside their religion who believe differently.
Traditional morals and adherence to the Constitution aren't religiously based beliefs. They're behaving politically to resist socialism.
And I gave you much more evidence than you responded to, providing his tweets of attacking the free press,
The wonderful, innocent free press, yes. Do you know how conservative Joe Scarborough was as Florida congressman during the 90's? Do you know who he is now? Did MSNBC lock him in a Dr Who style Tardis, and re-program him, or did they just tell him to do as he's told, and then they'll determine if he'll keep his cushy anchor job?
name calling and attacking individuals like Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
Do you know what Peter Strzok said and did? I know it's okay with you, but try to understand why it's not okay with Christians. They know that most of Trump's assertiveness and lack of manners is reactionary.
All the evidence suggests that Trump is striking out at everyone and everything else and that the media is merely reporting it. Trump is the source of hate, not the target of it.
Striking out? Come on, you're using the wrong terminology. The ABC term is "lashing out". Every time Trump says much of anything, he's "lashing out". The angry news media, they never lash out. Maxine Waters? Never. They just have "outcries".
Out of time tonight. And I'm not seeing much more to inspire me to further clarify why Christians support Trump. It's a fact that they do however, I heard tonight on Fox that his ratings are at an all time high.
Oh but in the coming days I want to address the "lie" thing more. Message 2219 contains a whopper that 10,000 Trump lies couldn't offset.
You've mistaken the emphasis, which was your obvious lie about not having time for discussing Trump, as proven by your long messages. Why not just play it straight.
I have been playing it straight, as my message 2239 stated;
quote:I'm only here at this time to make it as clear as I can why Christians support him. Most all of the other Pro-Trump / anti-Trump discussion is raging all over the country, I don't have the time for it.
So by stating that I was out of time on ONE evening, it didn't automatically mean that I don't have a lot more time on OTHER evenings. So you call me a liar for it, and I thank you very much, because it's beautiful illustration of the twisted criteria that's used to call Trump a liar most of the time.
Oh, be still my heart.
When I joined this forum back in 09, it was roughly the same point in the Obama administration as we are now in the Trump administration. The main difference of course is the economy, at that time (terrible) and now (very good). At that time, you seemed to me you were trying to discourage any type of political discussion here. Now we have this very long political thread that you started 1 1/2 years ago, but your above warning to Faith doesn't show much "tolerance" something the left seems to preach more than practice. I'll see what else I can fit in this evening between this site's server mal-functions, and then I'll probably call it good, then you and NoNukes (your fixer) can finish me off with a lot of your usual flaming arrows.
I understand you believe Trump is a great guy doing a great job, but merely reporting what Trump does and says cannot be bias. For example, Trump still believes Putin over his intelligence agencies, and the media have reported this. That's not bias, that's truth.
He didn't say he ALWAYS believes Putin over U.S. intelligence, he was referring to one instance. Reporting it as a blanket statement is fake news.
Are you talking about news reporters or prognosticators?
In this day and age, it's almost impossible to tell them apart. What is George Stephanopoulos? I don't think even he knows what he is.
marc9000 writes:
Impeachment has been the number 1 priority of the Democrats and the news media ever since that fateful evening of November 2016.
Where did you get that idea? Until recently (due to Trump's increasing efforts to obstruct justice) most prominent Democrats seem to have thought it a bad idea. I readily concede that very recently the Democratic position is evolving depending upon what happens with the Mueller investigation and control of the houses of Congress. Here's a New York Times editorial urging against impeachment: Democrats: Don’t Take the Bait on Impeachment
I get that idea because Democrats, and the many prognosticators in the news media have constantly been bringing it up ever since Trump took office. The only reason some Democrats urge against it is because they know it won't work at this time, and their efforts to try it would cost them politically.
But Trump does keep changing his positions. The most recent example is his position on accepting the judgment of his intelligent agencies on Russian meddling in the 2016 election. There is video of him saying opposite things multiple times on multiple consecutive days.
Every president does, and has. A president can determine something, then modify it as foreign leaders make changes, or if he gets a new intelligence report that he didn't have before.
Obama deported more illegal immigrants than any prior administration.
So one of 2 things had to be happening, either NO children were separated from their parents during that time, or the news media didn't report it. Which do you think it was?
A wall is not the answer. In fact, it's a stupid answer. It would be like damming up a river and expecting it to stop the flow of water. A dam can only hold back the water for so long, then the reservoir fills and the water spills across the gates. Same with desperate immigrants. You can build a wall, but they'll just find other ways around.
This is like asking "why have police? Bank robbers are going to rob banks no matter what we do." We try to keep things under control the best we can. A wall can actually be cheaper in the long run than what we're doing now, because a wall can cut down on the manpower needed to guard the border. Manpower isn't cheap.
The correct way to address immigration is first to understand that immigration is good.
Illegal immigration is not good. Immigration laws have come about slowly over long periods of time, by both sides of the aisle. I don't think there are any laws that say we have to suspend all or part of them, if some people get emotional over non U.S. citizens family affairs, resulting from the enforcement of our traditional laws.
It begins with people at the bottom of the economic ladder but who are willing to work and strive for a better life...
And you see evidence that the vast majority of illegal immigrants have that desire? People who support Trump can't see it.
I have been somewhat involved with a few machine shops in my area. I've noticed that when it comes to hiring a mechanical engineer, they're quite willing to hire one or more from Germany or Japan, even if it means helping them with an expensive move. Why would they do that, over a mechanical engineer from the U.S, with most all qualifications being equal? The answer is because those two countries are known for their innovation and ability with mechanical design and ideas. The history of other cultures is important in determining worthwhile, or risky immigration. What traditions / skills come from the countries of the people pouring over our southern border? Failed socialism? The ability to cultivate cocaine and heroin?
I haven't seen Democrats make a good case for why they want more central and south Americans here. That's why Republicans are doing so well these days, including Trump - it's obvious that Democrats are simply after votes.
Do you ever spend time sitting in traffic jams? Thousands of people in my area spend an extra hour or two each working day doing just that. Why do we need more people, our infrastructure is losing the ability to keep up with the people we have now. U.S. population is at about 326 million now. In 1955, it was about 166 million. The U.S. was in the middle of it's interstate building program in 55, most of our current interstates were built during that time, about a 12 year period. Today's transportation dept and politicians have spent more than 12 years ringing their hands wondering how to replace the aging, largely obsolete I-75 bridge over the Ohio river in Cincinnati. Why? More environmental laws, more eminent domain laws, and of course, 20 trillion in debt. What are more uneducated latino's going to do to help this?
Australia, roughly the same physical size as the U.S. currently has a population of 25 million. 9 million in 1955. What is so catastrophic about not having immigrants pouring in?
marc9000 writes:
I've already mentioned one, "China is killing us on trade".
I think there is widespread agreement on this - how is this a "TRUTH that needs to be said?"
Business-as-usual politicians tend not to say things like that, because they know that they and their predecessors are largely to blame for it.
You still haven't provided a single example, not of "things that are true, yet offensive to most Washington insiders, including some in his own party," nor of "TRUTHS that need to be said."
He does it all the time, Trump supporters see it. Any examples I put here wouldn't satisfy you.
But I've found an ABC News video reporting that incident that doesn't back you up at all - the caption is completely different:
That's because your video is from the morning show, my example was from the evening, David Muir newscast. I'm not going to spend a lot of time searching for it, I know how it was presented, Trump supporters know that 91% of news coverage of Trump is negative.
You're saying it's hard to tell between the news pages and the opinion pages? Really?
I watch television news during meals. Like many people, I don't read newsprint much. That's better than a lot of Democrats, the only news they get is from late night comedy hosts.
marc9000 writes:
It's clear to most Christians that the DNC has bought and paid for all the mainstream media.
What evidence makes this so clear to Christians?
91% negative coverage of Trump. Media Research Center documents it.
™ Version 4.2
(1)